w 




opy 1 



.^3vM^Mnley., , Chai 



UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS BULLETIN 

Issued Weekly 

Vol. XV AUGUST 1, 1918 No. 48 

[Entered as second-class matter December ii, 1912, at the post office at Urbana, Illinois 
under the Act of August 24, 1912] 



THE GREAT CONDITION 



By 

DAVID KIN LEY 

Professor of Economics 




PUBLISHED BY THE WAR COMMITTEE 
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS 
URBANA 
Monograph 



This pamphlet contains the sub- 
stance of an address given before 
the IlUnois Veterinary Association 
July 10, 1918. 



13 1-'^ 



THE GREAT CONDITION 

"There can be but one issue. The set- 
tlement must be final. There can be 
no compromise." — President Wilson 

Peace that is not conclusive is not worth having. The con- 
clusiveness of peace depends on the attainment of the righteous 
purpose of the war. Peace terms proposed in the hope that mere 
cessation of war and bloodshed will satisfy the combatants or 
restore harmony and goodwill, are futile and foolish. The loss of 
a life, or of a million lives, is not the worst thing that could happen 
to the world. There are things more precious than life. 

If these statements are true, and I take it that we all agree 
that they are, the flabby peace-monger is worse than foolish. He is 
dangerous. He asks for peace not to establish principle but to 
avoid danger and trouble and unsightliness. His moral sense is 
perverted. His scale of moral values is unsound. He would stroke 
the back of the hissing rattlesnake because of the mottled beauty of 
its skin. He would pacify the untamed tiger by scratching his ears 
and offering him a bit of the raw beef he is struggling for. The 
snake may respond to the patting. The tiger will seek to fill his 
stomach with more meat, even though it be that of the peace offerer 
himself. 

The people among us who say they wish peace may be 
grouped roughly into three classes ; the "peace at any price" people ; 
the "peace by discussion" people ; and the "peace by principle" 
people. 

The first group, again, includes several sub-groups. There 
are, in the first place, some sincere souls who look on war and 
bloodshed as wrong in themselves and believe that no end which 
these can attain can be justifiable, because of the sinfulness of the 
means. They are children horrified by a nightmare and do no harm 
excepting when, like children, they get in our way. Because they 
can make the tiger purr with their music when his belly is full, they 
think they can do it when he is roused by hunger. 

Then there are the cowards — not many among us, thank God ! 

3 



jAli 17 1919 



— who would rather risk a master's lash than the loss of a hand or 
the sight of bloodshed. 

Beside them is the traitor who lauds the beauties of peace 
because his purse is filled and he is false to the nation that has be- 
friended him. The undeveloped, the coward, and the traitor are 
all in this group together. 

The peace by discussion people are also peace by compromise 
people and are found chiefly among those who think that they 
enhance their reputations for being judicial, by proclaiming that in 
a contest like this there surely must be wrong and right on both 
sides. They are long on pose but short on facts. They emphasize 
the iniquity of Great Britain towards the American colonies, but 
forget to mention the establishment of the South African Federa- 
tion. They have nothing to say about the moral magnanimity of 
America in freeing Cuba but much about her treatment of the 
Indians and the iniquities of the Mexican War. Some of them 
tell us that they lived long in Germany and never saw any exhibition 
of the evil spirit that the world is now condemning in Germany. 

This group has its organs of expression largely in certain 
eastern journals. One of these journals recently discussed the 
problem of peace terms and suggested that if Germany and her 
allies would withdraw from Belgium and France, give Belgium 
proper indemnity to restore her ravaged territory, and withdraw 
her armies from the other territories which she now occupies, it 
would be fair to restore her colonies and cry quits. The writer 
argued that we would thus have restored conditions to what they 
were before the war, and that, therefore, nobody would have lost. 
These people are deeply impressed with the highly moral talk of the 
German government as seen, for example, in the German reply to 
the Pope's peace proposals of some months ago. The German 
government is said to have agreed with Pope Benedict "that in the 
future, the material power of arms must be superseded by the moral 
power of right." But shall we be content to let a highway robber go 
free because when he is caught by superior force in his robbery he 
offers to restore what he has taken and go about his business? Is 
it not our duty to see to it that he changes his business or is put 
under limitations which will make its future pursuit impossible? It 
is true, as the Netv York Tribune has remarked, that "the outlaw 
and outcast is willing to be reinstated in a new society of nations. 



but only on his own terms, which include no sackcloth and ashes on 
his part for the infamies of the past." 

We cannot plumb the depths of the futility of the "peace by 
discussion" proposals without an understanding of the German 
peace proposals. In Germany, as elsewhere, there are various 
groups of "would-be peace makers." There are some in Germany 
who talk of peace without annexation and would give back to all 
belligerents the territory which they had at the outbreak of the war, 
provided Germany be left with a consolidated influence or power 
over Central Europe and the Near East. There are those who would 
restore the Pre- War status in territory and let each belligerent and 
victim bear its own burden of rehabilitation. A large party demands 
the increase of German sea-power with seaports on the coast of 
Belgium and France, and the coal mining districts of the latter. 
Another demands the realization of the dream of "mittel Europa." 
Another adds to this the dream of "Berlin to Bagdad." Others 
insist on the restoration of a colonial empire, not in the scattered 
fragments which made up the colonies which she has lost, but in a 
solid block of territory and people from the East to the West coast 
of Africa, so that in the years to come Germany could arm millions 
of black men and, from that vantage point, once more reach out for 
the domination of the world. There are others who w^ould be con- 
tent with annexations of Russian territory. Be it noted that some, 
if not all, of these programs include freedom of the seas — FOR 
GERMANY — meaning that Germany must have coaling stations 
and a fleet such that no other power would dare attack her. Then 
Germany must have a controlling influence in South America, and 
that continent must be open to her colonists to live in and keep up 
their duty to their home country. To the Pan-Germans who look 
westward, the enemy has been Great Britain. To those who look 
eastward, the great enemy was Russia. To both, the great enemy 
has now become America. 

The real import of the "peace by understanding and discus- 
sion" proposition is shown by the statement of Paul Lensch, a Ger- 
man Socialist, made only last October. He declares that such a 
peace "would be for Great Britain the greatest defeat in its history 
and the beginning of its ruin." Again, he tells us that Germany has 
a great and immense advantage "in the fact that Germany will have 
won the war, if she does not lose it, whereas England will have lost 
the war if she does not win it." That was written, note you, at the 

5 



time when our efforts were regarded as negligible, and the same 
remark will now apply to us. This same writer tells his countrymen 
that they are too impatient. He warns them that it will be a score 
or more of years before the economic and political disintegration 
which the war has started will show themselves. "Then", he tells 
us, "the true time of harvest will have come." Being pious, as well 
as patriotic, he also tells his fellowcountrymen that the Biblical 
phrase applies in their case, — "Seek ye first the kingdom of God, 
and all these things shall be added unto you". "First bring about 
the peace by understanding, which guarantees German political in- 
dependence, territorial integrity and freedom of economic develop- 
ment, then Germany will have shown herself so strong that all 
these things shall be added unto her." 

These are the views of various parties in the (ierman Empire. 
The government, while neither expressly accepting nor rejecting 
any of the programs has held itself in a position to adopt any or all 
of them according to the military conditions at the close of the war. 
In other words, the peace proposals of the German government 
have varied inversely with their military successes. We have be- 
come accustomed to see a German peace oft'ensive follow a failure 
of German military offensive, but in the intervals of German military 
success the spirit and intention of the government appears to have 
been on the side of the extremest demands that any one of the 
parties of the people has made. The military party in Germany, 
the German autocracy, the German government, will undoubtedly 
adopt as its program of peace conditions the program of the most 
extreme party zvhich it feels sure it can get. Hence it is that the 
German reply to the Pope's note, for example, like all their other 
peace propositions, was general and vague. On certain matters, 
however, the government has made its views evident. For example, 
Germany must have economic privileges in Belgium and must 
dominate Belgian policy, if Belgium is restored at all. As the 
Chancellor said to Mr. Gerard, "We must possibly have the forts 
of Liege and Namur. We must have other forts and garrisons 
throughout Belgium. We must have possession of the railroad 
lines. We must have possession of the ports and other means of 
communication. The Belgians will not be allowed to maintain an 
army, but we must be allowed to retain a large army in Belgium. 
We must have commercial control of Belgium." 

But on one point the government and the separate groups of 



people in Germany are all agreed. It is that the settlement of the 
war shall secure enlarged power and increased resources for Ger- 
many at the expense of somebody. Along with this declaration 
goes the refusal, sometimes tacit and sometimes expressed, to admit 
that her aggression on her neighbors for her own aggrandizement is 
wrong and must not be repeated. The consideration of this point 
brings us to a discussion of the aims of the third group of peace 
advocates mentioned at the beginning, the "peace by principle" 
people. 

This group of our own people, comprising without doubt a 
vast majority of those who desire to see peace re-established, are 
those who take the ground that the primary condition of the restor- 
ation of peace is the establishment of a certain fundamental principle 
of political morality which Germany has violated. Variously 
phrased, this principle is that might does not make right in inter- 
national dealings any more than in individual affairs ; that no nation 
may now commit with impunity, acts of aggression upon its neigh- 
bors ; that civilization may not again be trampled on in war by 
outrages that break down centuries of progress of law and order; 
that war, even if it must be waged, shall not be carried on under a 
policy of frightfulness, an attempt to terrorize the world by murder, 
outrage, and destruction. To establish the principle thus variously 
expressed, is the (iREAT CONDITION of peace. To end the war 
without establishing this principle, either by Germany's voluntary 
acceptance of it or her compulsory submission to it, will be to lose 
the war. To fail to establish this principle, at any price in blood and 
wealth, will be simply to give a breathing space to the forces of evil 
to become stronger for a second effort to bring the world under the 
domination of the opposite principle. 

On this matter we cannot be too clear, too specific, too em- 
phatic, too determined. The only terms of peace which America 
and her Allies can accept or even listen to, for the sake, I will not 
say of justice only, but of their own national existence, are terms 
which acknowledge and give expression to this great principle. In 
other words, the terms of peace must be such as to secure as far as 
possible in the future that no nation shall attempt, or prepare herself 
to attempt, to impose her will upon other nations, to destroy their 
liberty and independence, their economic and social order, their 
intellectual and moral consciousness, and their sentiment of nation- 
alitv. 



As remarked before, the position which some people take 
that if Germany will retire from the countries she has conquered 
and will provide for the economic restoration of devasted territory, 
we might w^ell make peace, is fundamentally wrong, unless that 
restoration is made in the spirit of repentance for her evil deeds 
and as evidence of her full acceptance of the principle here described 
as the GREAT CONDITION. For, be it repeated, whatever in- 
demnities may be paid ; whatever restoration of territory may be 
made; — nay even if she were able to recall the dead to life and 
restore the population she has murdered ; if she were able to collect 
the ashes and gases into which by her destruction she has dissipated 
the accumulated wealth of ages ; even if she were able to restore all 
the conditions that prevailed before the war both within her own 
boundaries and elsewhere ;• — we shall have failed to win the war 
unless in addition Germany freely accepts or is compelled to submit 
to this Great Condition. Well would it be if by some miracle the 
people of Germany could have a change of heart that would lead 
them to accept this principle and give evidence of their repentance, 
by such restoration as I have just described. But there is no 
evidence of such a spirit of repentance or even of regret. On the 
contrary, they tell us that France shall be bled wdiite, that the power 
of Great Britain shall be broken and the Empire dismembered, so 
that neither may ever again be able to strike a blow against similar 
oppression. 

At this point one plea, to which some people urge attention, 
needs consideration. They say that we must not be bitter in our 
condemnation, nor seek to impose on Germany terms which will 
humiliate her, because, after all, this war, like many others, is 
impersonal. They tell us that it is the clash of two rival economic 
and cultural systems. They remind us of the American civil war as 
an example of a conflict between tw^o systems of economic order 
and civilization. But the parallel is not true. The Civil War was, 
as some other wars have been, a conflict between two rival, irrecon- 
cilable systems of life which grew up as a result of the environment 
in which their people lived, without conscious purpose on the part 
of either to injure the other. 

The main difference between the present war and other wars, 
from this point of view% is that no other war in history has been 
produced by a conflict of systems one of which was consciously, 
deliberately, adopted as a national policy for the very purpose of 



producing a war that would enhance the aggrandizement of the ag- 
gressor. But it is estabHshed beyond cavil that for two generations, 
or more, German policy has been shaped to this end. Upon 
Germany, therefore, rests the moral responsibility for the iniquity. 
She cannot claim even an equal division of the guilt on the ground 
that the war is a clash of economic and cultural systems, for she 
molded her system to produce the war. 

The illustration, however, happily serves to teach a lesson 
of a different kind. The Civil War zvas such a conflict of differing 
social organizations. The principles on which these two organiza- 
tions respectively rested were so different that only one could sur- 
vive. They could not exist side by side. The conflict could not be 
settled by compromise or discussion. There could be no negotiated 
peace. President Lincoln was not deluded on this point. He knew 
that "Rebellion not crushed would be rebellion triumphant." The 
same is true in the present crisis. The system of government for 
which militaristic, autocratic Germany stands cannot exist side by 
side with democracy. One must be crushed if the other is to survive. 
Let us not deceive ourselves on this matter. If the Allies permit 
the survival of an autocracy powerful enough to begin another 
world war, it will destroy civilization. Never can the world be safe 
for democracy. Therefore, there can be no peace in this conflict 
by compromise or negotiation or discussion. One system of political 
and economic organization or the other must go down to complete 
defeat. We must so punish this autocracy and crush its spirit that 
at least for generations to come it will not rear its head again. 

But, say some kindly people, this is unchristian and wrong; 
we shall drive the German people to hate us, whereas we should 
try to win them over. While we may readily acknowledge the force 
and kindliness of this view, we shall make a mistake if we permit 
it to have any influence with us. Have the past four years not shown 
abundantly that the only condition under which Germany will not 
hate the world after this war is that she shall be successful? But 
her success is the very thing which must be prevented if the principle 
of autocracy is to be destroyed. We must face the fact that after 
this war Germany will hate the world and that her people will be 
an obstacle to every attempt at world progress, just as for years the 
l)itterness between North and South stood in the way of that con- 
solidation and harmony necessary to the perfect welding of our 
national unity. The generations "to come must contend with the 

9 



sul euness of a conquered foe", and this war will not be ended, 
however or whenever it closes, until, fifty or seventy-five years from 
now, bitterness is forgotten and the spirit of "live and let live" is 
accepted by all the nations concerned, those who are beaten as well as 
those who win. 

But how shall we know ? How can we tell whether and when 
Germany either accepts or submits to the great condition that 
autocracy must be destroyed and the principle of self-determination 
and self-government, the principle that right makes might, estab- 
lished and obeyed? The answer is that, "By their fruits ye shall 
know them." If Germany were to accept the principle, she would 
of her own free will do the things which the Allies have outlined as 
necessary to a settlement. She would renounce annexations and 
restore devastation. Of her own free will she would atone for 
murder, outrage and destruction. She would restore to those \vhom 
she has despoiled. She would do penance for the murders she has 
committed. But there is no likelihood that she will do these things 
of her own free will and so show that she accepts in humility the 
condition that is imperative. There is nothing to do but compel her 
to submit. Certainly our own President made every attempt to 
induce the German government to accept the ])rinciple willingly. 
But even he at last was, as he said, disillusioned and came to the 
conclusion that the only remedy was force, force without stint, force 
to the limit, — and so it must be. 

The concrete expression of submission to the Great Condi- 
tion, the destruction of the principle of autocracy and acceptance 
of the principle of the right of a people to determine its own life and 
its own government, can be assured, of course, only through the im- 
position of specific terms of peace. What are some of the things 
that will make sure the establishment of the Great Condition? 

1. The first is a victory which will drive the Germans and 
their allies back within the boundaries of their owm countries. 
Whether or not there was a time when a proposal for a peace with- 
out victory could have been reasonably entertained, it has passed. 

2. Germany must restore and indemnify Belgium. 

3. Germany and her allies must evacuate all the other ter- 
ritory which they have conquered and occupied — Russia. Roumania, 
Servia, Montenegro, France and Luxemburg. 

4. Alsace-Lorraine must be restored to France and the 
Trentino and Trieste to Italy. 

10 



5- Turkish rule must be limited to Turks only. 

6. The individual violators of humanity and law, those who 
have been responsible for and those who have actually committed, 
the acts of murder and personal outrage in Belgium, France, Russia, 
Poland, Servia and Armenia, must be punished. 

7. The Balkan question must be settled as far as possible 
"by friendly counsel along historically established lines of allegiance 
and nationality", and international guarantees of their stability and 
independence must be given by a council of the nations. 

8. Poland must be restored. 

9. There must be readjustments of frontiers in proper 
cases so as reasonably to consolidate national groups and afford due 
national resources. 

10. Germany's colonies may be restored to her only if ade- 
cjuate guarantees are secured (i) that they will not be made hatch- 
ing grounds for plots against her neighbors; (2) that the consent 
of the people and those of neighboring communities shall be secured ; 
(3) that she shall not organize in them armies of natives; (4) that 
the colonies will be governed in the interests of the people of the 
colonies and not for exploitation. She should not be left in a posi- 
tion in Africa in which, for example, she can again check the *'Cape 
to Cairo" Railway. 

11. Germany must restore that part of the world's shipping 
which she has illegally destroyed. 

,12. All nations must agree to reduce armaments, both 
military and naval. 

13. An international court of justice must b? es^^ablirhed *^o 
which all the participants in this war. and as many others as pos- 
sible, shall agree to submit their disputes for a reasonable time 
before making preparation to settle them by arms. 

14. By a similar agreement at the close of the war, there 
should be established a League of Nations to enforce agreements 
and to prevent treaties in the future from becoming scraps of paper. 

"For such arrangements and covenants, we are willing to 
fight and to continue to fight until they are achieved." They are 
characterized by principles of justice and recognize the right of all 
nations, great and small, to "live on equal terms of liberty and 
safety." 

It is of the highest importance that the people of the country 
should understand clearly the necessity of insisting that the war 

11 




020 934 737 



shall go on until this principle which I have called the Great Con- 
dition is securely established; that the power of autocracy shall be 
finally broken ; that no government, or people, or nation, may, with 
impunity, aggrandize itself through the destruction of the liberties 
and rights and property of another government, or people, or nation. 
It is of the highest importance that we shall develop throughout the 
country a public spirit that will not yield on this point, but will 
insist on attaining our purpose; so that, if by any possibilty dark 
days come and weak-kneed people join in clamor to be relieved from 
the frightful strain of the war by a settlement which will not estab- 
lish this principle, the people of America will sternly refuse and 
will push out of their way all who impede them in the attainment 
of this mighty purpose, and insist that our Government shall stand 
for this Great Condition as the essential of lasting peace. 



"There must be no hugger-mugger peace. It must 

be a real peace Germany has waged three 

wars, and each time she has added through those 
wars to her strength, to her power, and each 
successive war she has waged has inevitably en- 
couraged her on to the next. If she had had one 
check you would not have had this war. If this 
war succeeds in adding one square yard to her ter- 
ritory, of adding one cubit to her stature, of 
adding a single iota to her strength, it will simply 
raise their idea of militarism for which the world 
is being sacrificed at the present moment." 

Hon. Lloyde George 



12 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



020 934 737 4 



